Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

QF Group possible Redundancy Numbers/Packages

Old 11th Jul 2020, 21:44
  #681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 188
As Fuji said they should run the VR first.

If they get the required numbers, great and all of us can take a chill pill.

Problem is let’s say they even fall 20 numbers short. How many people in the bottom 100 are going to risk being the one not to take LWOP? And what about the next 100 pilots above them? As SandyPalms said- how far will the crocodile climb?

This is a very dirty tactic, but it’s in the EBA.
Green.Dot is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 21:59
  #682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 331
I think everyone’s barking at shadows here.
The company don’t want CR because it might start a fight.
All the options they’re providing will achieve their goals. Infact they will probably turn people down.
It is a bit naughty to offer the LWOP to protect ones position. They know the bottom few hundred will jump at it though.
That I don’t like but they’re not friends. It’s business to them. Pure and simple.
By the way when will they advise the results?
All I saw was that the binding commitment was valid for up to three months?
Wingspar is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 22:00
  #683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 339
Jobkeeper definitely applies to lwop as it stands. If any continuation of JK is the same then lwop is a bit of a no-brainer for junior guys imo. But who’s to say how junior will be junior once everyone at the bottom absconds to secure their jobs.

If any new jobkeeper doesn’t include lwop then the company are essentially forcing us to choose between job security and a minimal wage which for a lot of us is the difference between scraping by or not. This would be a bit of a dick move by the company. I would prefer to stay stood down with no leave accrual to keep JK.

Also how does it work if a LH pilot is made redundant (compulsory) and there are say 50 SH pilots below them. Does that pilot then get rehired at the bottom of the list losing 50 spots?
Fonz121 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 22:11
  #684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: M.I.A.
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Fonz121 View Post
Also how does it work if a LH pilot is made redundant (compulsory) and there are say 50 SH pilots below them. Does that pilot then get rehired at the bottom of the list losing 50 spots?
No.

From the Agreement:

A pilot re-employed will resume the relative position on the pilot seniority list that he or she occupied as at the time of termination of employment due to redundancy.
Bug Smasher Smasher is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 23:09
  #685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by cloudsurfng View Post
Re WK post on qrewroom, he says redundancy will happen in accordance with the pilots agreement, EA10. A SH pilot isn’t employed under EA 10.

I really don’t think this is going to be a short term issue, however if this shit continues or gets worse it may. The company’s position is that SH is not going to be included if there are CR’s now. I’d believe their IR lawyers been through this in great detail, and that their position is pretty solid. The other side is that if SH shrinks, then any LH pilot will not be included.

Remember there are other mechanisms available before redundancy (ie temporary EA variations).
The Integration Agreement sits above both the LH & SH award. It’s the mechanism that allows crew to move between awards. No one signs a new employment contract when they move between awards because the IA puts you under the same umbrella. The Last on first off redundancy rules come from this agreement.
Poto is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 23:11
  #686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 80
Apologies if I've missed something, but how (even leaving SH pilots out of the argument) does being on LWOP allow the company to circumvent LH seniority regarding possible CRs?


Last edited by Koizi; 11th Jul 2020 at 23:18. Reason: Remove SH pilots from question
Koizi is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 23:14
  #687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 296
If it comes to CR, it seems QF will try and Silo both sides. This is their desire, as the 737 pilots are the ones they will need soon. It will end up in court, and I think the IA will win. It will be straight seniority.

Great point Koizi. I don’t think that legal either.

so much of this is still so dependent on whether the SH and LH lists can be separated when it comes to CR. WK (who is the bloke who wrote the IA) thinks it’s not possible. It needs to be tested in court, and that could be a long process.

Last edited by SandyPalms; 11th Jul 2020 at 23:51.
SandyPalms is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 23:53
  #688 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,309
There are about 200 LH pilots over the age of 60.

The top 40 are over 63.5 and will get an ‘early retirement’ offer. It’s still likely to pay more than being ‘stood down’.

The next 40 are between 62.5 and 63.5. It’s a relative no brainer that they will be far better off financially taking the deal on offer. Even 61.5 (another 50) is probably better off to take it if they have more than a couple of months leave up their sleeve.

The remaining 70? Line ball call as to whether the flying picks up enough for them to make more than the VR offer on the table. Give the impact that a lump sum payment can have into your bank account I suspect the offer will be enough for at least half of them to take it. 165 in total. There may be some crew under the age of 60 who have a look at the deal too so perhaps another 5-10 there.

So I suspect Qantas will go pretty close to getting the 190-200 they’re after.

Unless they have a job contract to go to, any junior pilot should sit on their hands until the VR process plays out and avoid taking LWOP. Under CR Qantas pays a minimum of 6 months (this would apply to anyone hired since 2016) and you have a right of return as per the EA. Take LWOP and you get no accrued leave, no credited years towards LSL, a future CR won’t include any credit for time taken LWOP, etc. Until AIPA is able to have input into this LWOP and get a few quid pro quo’s for helping the company out you’d be nuts to just jump in the hope that it’d save your job.

Of course if you have a 2, 3, 5 year contract on the table and want some certainty for the next few years then go for it! Little to lose in that situation. Though if you really wanted to ‘play the system’ you could hold off applying for LWOP and continue to accrue leave and years of service and then take the LWOP a little further down the track. A strategy not without risk!
Keg is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 23:57
  #689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 35
Koizi/Sandy Palms, it is legal. Have a read of 15.10 of the EA, it’s all spelt out there. It also addresses re-employment after CR etc. Might I suggest to all at QF having to navigate through this time that a good read of that section of the award is worth a lot more than trawling through all the assumptions and opinions put forward on PPRuNe.
pig dog is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2020, 23:57
  #690 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Gladstone
Age: 44
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Koizi View Post
Apologies if I've missed something, but how (even leaving SH pilots out of the argument) does being on LWOP allow the company to circumvent LH seniority regarding possible CRs?
Its absolutely ridiculous.

Yes some crew may have other options outside Qantas who will explore the LWOP option and get their golden ticket. BUT the vast majority don't. So its either hand up your entitlements and get a ticket too or stay stood down and accrue your leave BUT you may be made CR......but we can't tell you until its too late.

Dirty tactics
Fujiroll76 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 00:03
  #691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Poto View Post
The Integration Agreement sits above both the LH & SH award. It’s the mechanism that allows crew to move between awards. No one signs a new employment contract when they move between awards because the IA puts you under the same umbrella. The Last on first off redundancy rules come from this agreement.
that is not the opinion of the company. Believe me, they have explored this in great detail. Hopefully we won’t have to find out.
cloudsurfng is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 00:21
  #692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 37
Posts: 483
I think the argument of not getting your entitlement accrual while on LWOP is a wish washy point as we all know the company will be going after that anyway with temporary EBA amendments.

To be clear to everyone, the company's view is that CR will come from LH only.

AIPA really needs to provide more information.
normanton is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 00:38
  #693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 284
The Company has had ‘Its position’ changed quite a few times during this pandemic. I would expect this one will be no different if they commence CR.
Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 00:40
  #694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 909
The integration award was the award that allowed seamless transfer between two seperate agreements. It is very specific on how existing pilots (at the time the IA was written) will be treated in respect of redundancy, but it only provides pilots hired after it’s implementation with a brief sentence saying they are to be retrenched first. It doesn’t provide any specifics on what order those new hire pilots will be retrenched.

One could argue in court that the provisions between Q and A pilots in the IA should be applied to new hire pilots as well, which would mean all CR is quarantined to LH. One could also argue SH pilots cannot be bound by provisions of a LH EBA that they cannot vote on, unless it’s written those provisions specifically apply to them.

A court could determine that it is a grey area and the company and AIPA have to sort it out amongst themselves with something definitive.

IMO the overarching statement is the one saying “a pilots position becomes redundant” in the applicable EBA. As no SH pilots have been offered VR, then no SH pilot’s position has become redundant.

Agreement discussions notwithstanding don’t forget there’s also legal precedent in Australia for not applying seniority in redundancy (Kendell).

Last edited by dr dre; 12th Jul 2020 at 01:52.
dr dre is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 01:22
  #695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: centre of my universe
Posts: 284
Read the Kendal airlines decision. Not a precedent at all
Poto is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 01:46
  #696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 909
Originally Posted by Poto View Post
Read the Kendal airlines decision. Not a precedent at all
It’s not an exact precedent for this situation (nothing ever is) but it is an example of when the Industrial Relations Commission in 2002 sided with a company over a union over the issue of seniority “having regard to likely additional costs and disruption in the context of presently tenuous airline operations” (those words from the AIRC decision). Just after Ansett collapsed there were then “tenuous” airline operations in Australia, as there are now. It involved a court case over actions outside of strict seniority, and the court did side with the company over the union citing prohibitive costs.

But I don’t think this line would be perused in court, I think if it did end up in court it’ll come down to what is written in current agreements.

And again, I firmly believe no CR will be required at all. The package is pretty generous enough and I think it’ll be oversubscribed.
dr dre is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 01:58
  #697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 896
And that is the major point out of the Drs example. In the end the court will fall on the side of the greater good. In this case keeping the company (any company) viable, even if that means upsetting a few people. I think most companies will have a relatively easy case to prove what is a more cost effective way to help them survive and thus provide more employment in the longer run and the courts have already shown they will rule that way if it is a grey area.
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:01
  #698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Living with consequences
Posts: 22
Fuji,
Sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I still don’t get it.

Well the jury is still out on that....
The jury is still out on what?

By definition, Short Haul pilots are those who fly the 737 and Long Haul pilots are everybody else.
So how can 20% of LH pilots be ineligible for VR?
Emmit Stussy is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:34
  #699 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,309
Ozbiggles, AIPA can easily argue that making a SH F/O redundant (in seniority) won’t have a material impact on the SH business given the business is only flying 20, 30, 40, 50% of it’s normal flying anyway. Even as they ramp back up towards 100% it will simply mean slightly higher divisors for F/Os. I don’t think the ‘business detriment’ is going to be a valid argument by Qantas in that context.

Interestingly I reckon it’d be much cheaper for Qantas to make the bottom 250-300 redundant than offer VR. Any subsequent uptick in flying can be dealt with using heavy crew (2+2 or 1+2+1). At this stage we’d be insane to negotiate/ vote away the accrual of leave at normal rates whilst stood down or on reduced divisors. It’s a small price for Qantas to pay so that they have at it’s disposal a pilot workforce ready to go when things pick up.
Keg is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2020, 02:40
  #700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 48
CR can’t create a vacancy otherwise the position was never actually redundant.

This alone means SH is quarantined from a LH surplus.
LTBC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.